UK Goes Full Orwell: Government To Take Children Away From Parents If They Might Become Radicalized
from the ministry-of-love dept
If there are two edicts I try to follow whenever I'm writing, they are, first, write what is true and, second, avoid cliche at all costs. I bring that up only as a preface before saying the following: the UK is walking down an Orwellian path. It's nearly the cliche of cliches to say something like this, and yet it happens that the cliche is true. While there is most certainly a real thing known as a threat from Islamic terrorism, there is also such a thing as overreaction. What started as the British government's attempt to ban extremist thought from social media and television (under the notion that some thoughts are too dangerous to enjoy the freedom that other thoughts deserve) then devolved into the conscripting of teachers that were to be on the lookout for children that might become radicalized. To assist them with this, the government helpfully provided spy-software to use against students. Spy-software which itself was found to be exploitable in the most laughably easy of ways. This employed two of the most horrifying aspects of Orwell's Oceania: the concept of thought-crime and the employ of citizens to fearfully surveil one another.
And now it seems the UK is going even further, adopting Oceania's reputation for the swallowing up of citizens should they be found suspect of thought-crime by those watchful citizens. Specifically, the Family Division of the Judiciary has put out a memo declaring exactly how it will remove children from the homes of anyone it suspects might radicalize those children. Here's a snippet.
Recent months have seen increasing numbers of children cases coming before the Family Division and the Family Court where there are allegations or suspicions: that children, with their parents or on their own, are planning or attempting or being groomed with a view to travel to parts of Syria controlled by the so-called Islamic State; that children have been or are at risk of being radicalised; or that children have been or at are at risk of being involved in terrorist activities either in this country or abroad.In other words, the High Court Judges within the Family Division are now tasked with determining whether children will be made wards of the state based solely on suspicions of possible radicalization. Children torn from mothers and fathers in Muslim homes will be subject to the whims and inherently flawed watch of the larger citizenry. A citizenry, mind you, that has had its vigilance unduly ramped up by the government's past actions and requests. It's hard to imagine a better recipe for the unfair targeting of Muslim families than this. Unfortunately for all concerned, this same memo imagined just such a recipe, making things even worse.
Only a local authority can start care proceedings (see section 31(1) of the Children Act 1989 – the police powers are set out in section 46). However, any person with a proper interest in the welfare of a child can start proceedings under the inherent jurisdiction or apply to make a child a ward of court.2 Usually, in cases falling within the description in paragraph 1 above, it will be the local authority which starts proceedings under the inherent jurisdiction or applies to make a child a ward of court, and the court would not expect the police (who have other priorities and responsibilities) to do so. There is, however, no reason why in a case where it seems to the police to be necessary to do so, the police should not start such proceedings for the purposes, for example, of making a child a ward of court, obtaining an injunction to prevent the child travelling abroad, obtaining a passport order, or obtaining a Tipstaff location or collection order. Given the complexities of these cases, I have decided that, for the time being at least, all cases falling within the description in paragraph 1 above are to be heard by High Court Judges of the Family Division.
Judges hearing cases falling within the description in paragraph 1 above will wish to be alert to: (a) the need to protect the Article 6 rights of all the parties;4 (b) the fact that much of the information gathered by the police and other agencies will not be relevant to the issues before the court; (c) the fact that some of the information gathered by the police and other agencies is highly sensitive and such that its disclosure may damage the public interest or even put lives at risk; (d) the need to avoid inappropriately wide or inadequately defined requests for disclosure of information or documents by the police or other agencies; (e) the need to avoid seeking disclosure from the police or other agencies of information or material which may be subject to PII, or the disclosure of which might compromise ongoing investigations, damage the public interest or put lives at risk, unless the judge is satisfied that such disclosure is “necessary to enable the court to resolve the proceedings justly” within the meaning given to those words when used in, for example, sections 32(5) and 38(7A) of the Children Act 1989 and section 13(6) of the Children and Families Act 2014; (f) the need to safeguard the custody of, and in appropriate cases limit access to, any sensitive materials provided to the court5 by the police or other agencies;6...It goes on from there, essentially giving courts and law enforcement an absolute free pass to deny the court open access and review of the very intelligence that landed the case before it in the first place. This is a memo designed to create a court system by which Muslim parents will lose their children and won't even be told why, or have the opportunity to rebut evidence against them, as no evidence need be presented. This isn't just overreaction, it's terrifyingly provocative action designed with one target in mind and built on the back of a process designed to be flawed in favor of a government that apparently can't get its head on straight.
Nobody means to suggest that there is no threat that the UK might face from Islamic terrorists and/or extremists. But you simply don't adopt the tactics of Orwell to combat that threat. Not if you want to claim your own people remain free, that is.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: children, courts, families, family services, radicalization, thought police, uk
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
"I know, let's give them even /more/ reasons to hate us!"
Well, I'm sure any parents who've had their children taken away will respond to the matter in a calm and collected manner, understanding that Big Brother really does know best, and would in no way make for a perfect target for any terrorist recruiters looking for people who might have a very real reason to hate the UK government and nothing left to lose, having already lost that which was most precious to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "I know, let's give them even /more/ reasons to hate us!"
For me, I'd rather focus on the pure evil of tearing a child away from his/her parents without being made to produce evidence at trial for why. I don't think we have to worry about might-be future-terrorists in that scenario. I think we have plenty on our own plates to worry about....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "I know, let's give them even /more/ reasons to hate us!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "I know, let's give them even /more/ reasons to hate us!"
As the old cliche goes, you cannot kill an idea. But you can create an environment in which it is difficult for certain ideas to take root. Sadly that's not the case right now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "I know, let's give them even /more/ reasons to hate us!"
In supposedly trying to fight extremism, the government performs it themselves, and in so doing they make the arguments of the nutjobs sound more legitimate than they otherwise would be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "I know, let's give them even /more/ reasons to hate us!"
The US isn't perfect on this either. Every state's Child Protective Services has stories where CPS jumps the gun and takes children away from their parents only to realize CPS' position was wrong while other cases results in children being left with obviously abusive parents resulting in injured or even dead children. CPS is in a no-win situation: take a child away and get criticized for not showing cause or get criticized for leaving the child and the child gets abused.
But the 'radicalized intentions' does create a slippery slope and in the US First Amendment issues. Would the children of Waco, Colorado City, and the Westboro Baptist Church, just to name three examples, be subject to removal just because their parents have beliefs that are different from the rest of the country?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "I know, let's give them even /more/ reasons to hate us!"
Very true, however, although it is unlikely that it will cause anyone to hate us more - it certainly gives their apologists excuses for anything bad they might do - and that is not a good idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "I know, let's give them even /more/ reasons to hate us!"
"Dont blame us, blame the terrorist........like your suppose too"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey, your 2 year old . . .
Best to let the government have him. They can do a better job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hey, your 2 year old . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Number 1
All sides need to fess up publically of past crimes, ALL crimes, however far back it needs to go
Number 2
Justified retribution for past crimes to those who caused it, no matter who they are
Number 3
STOP GIVING REASONS FOR RADICALIZATIONS
Number 4
See number three
Number 5
See number 4
Number 6
See number 5 X infinty
No side is innocent in this, and im not gonna root for the "LESS" inocent side, instead im gonna wait however long it might never take, for someone, some entity, some nation, some people, who actually tries to do good by humans
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: define education
"the Prussian Connection to American Schooling" by John Taylor Gatto
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Those people" are all bad, and now we have a law to make sure they won't be bad. Everyone cheer and go on with your merry lives, completely accepting this... because it will never happen to your children... until it does.
Secret evidence, that might be nothing more than some power tripping racist, taking children away. Aided by a court system who want to support the party line, and give themselves cover.
Seems no one has a history book, which is sad because they are in Europe where all of the history comes from.
Indigenous people having their children ripped away to stop them from rising up, that worked out really well.
Citizens who were part of a group everyone started to fear, hustled away to camps. I mean we never talk about it, its rarely touched on but it was fucking wrong.
How far will be to far for them this time?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When the program's standards are deemed too strict to give reportable results, how much will they loosen them? What constitutes radicalization? Will we see a period in which natural-born white european dissenters to the status quo are seen as radicals?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How about radical Catholics?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/oct/09/parents-cleared-of-abuse-launch-legal-battle-to-w in-custody-of-adopted-baby
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you actually have a brain in your head, with better ideas. You fight one idea by showing why it's wrong, and why your idea is better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
racism
But there was an important difference: the Irish terrorists (and their half-million supporters) were white skinned, English speaking Christians.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: racism
No - the real difference was that the Irish terrorists were supported by major US politicians
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: racism
Remember also the republican spokesmen having their words "voiced by an actor" to get round the ban on them speaking on the media - note that that particular limitation on speech has not been applied to muslims - although those who oppose them more honestly than the UK government dares to do have been prevented from speaking in the UK.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But imagining that the child will become less likely to commit violence against a society that forced it to grow up without its parents and effectively turned it into an orphan is optimistic, to put it mildly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
batman´s bane scary.
How about the parents join and organize a rescue squad?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Absolutely disgusting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What do you do with all that information that you use to form profiles on people and determin what their tastes, interests, and beliefs are? Certainly not let it rot in a server somewhere. It has to be used somewhere, if nothing else to justify itself.
Who is better to use it on than people who have the 'wrong' opinion? Political or otherwise?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rallying cry?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Rallying cry?
UK is proposing to kidnap and brainwash them.
which one is prolonging the suffering???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's hope the Conservatives are destroyed at the next election, hopefully by a party which also promises electoral reform like in Canada, because FPTP is only great if combined with approval voting, but on its own it's terrible. Might as well change it with other more democratic voting systems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Attacking children is typically easier than attacking the adults. Totalitarians love taking the easy way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Let's try that link one more time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
When the line you are trying to push is so logically inconsistent then you cannot defend it by argument and you have to resort to this kind of totalitarian nonsense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Role Models
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Role Models
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is a very dangerous precedent and the U.K. is turning more into a dictatorship than it is a free democracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Has anyone in the Family Services see "A Man for all Seasons"?
[William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Has anyone in the Family Services see "A Man for all Seasons"?
Applies again here though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Has anyone in the Family Services see "A Man for all Seasons"?
Margaret More: Father, that man's bad.
Sir Thomas More: There's no law against that.
William Roper: There is: God's law.
Sir Thomas More: Then God can arrest him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Waht better way to radicalize
Seens like the UK is creating a self fulfilling prophecy. Maybe thats their goal.........
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Waht better way to radicalize
Except that that is NOT what is happening here.
They are trying to get them to conform to a "moderate" version of the religion - unfortunately what that means is a version that cannot easily be found in the sacred texts of said religion. They are doing this because they want to maintain "solidarity" with moderate muslims - who they see as key to the de-radicalisation agenda.
Better to teach them simply that it is false. (Quite a different thing from "bad") This is easier and less likely to backfire later.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Adolf Hitler would be proud of the United Kingdom. They are becoming a dictatorship that is using this new policy to stop dissent, stop protesters and to shame families.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They wanted to "kill the Indian to save the man."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not that we're any better, but our populace is also much, much larger and made up of fifty-one different states who all have conflicting views on mass tracking. The UK doesn't have that problem, so the totalitarian wheels are speedier than the ones elsewhere.
It's a good warning, though. Soon, this sort of thing will be coming to us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wrong country
http://uk.businessinsider.com/over-1400-british-celebrities-and-politicians-suspected-in-child-sex-a buse-scandal-2015-5
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Wales_child_abuse_scandal
https://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/Elm_Guest_House_child_abuse_scandal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wrong country
Also it doesn't help that MI6 'gives them a hand' when they can
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So you have 40x fewer gun deaths per head than the US'
Last time I looked, being alive was a good thing.
they control your healthcare,
So at least you have some healthcare and you don't risk being bankrupted if the ambulance takes you to the wrong hospital.
Last time I looked being alive and not bankrupt was a good thing.
they control your money with taxes
Well they have to pay for the healthcare somehow - and it works out 2x cheaper than the US version.
and austerity measures.
OK you got me there - but then I didn't vote for this government - and this last point is their unique contribution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I think he already answered that.
Justify it however you want Richard. They've started coming for your children. Good luck with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You are prepared to give up your freedoms for security and comfort. You like the fact that you don't have the same freedoms to own guns in the UK because there is less gun death/violence, it makes you feel safe. You have given up your freedoms and your ability to resist for comfort and safety. Our forefathers warned us against this, and some of us are listening.
Some would say that "what good do your guns do against a military or police". We have over 350 million people, and more than 1 gun per person. It will and does give pause to our idiotic government, however slight, when they are preparing to do something stupid. We have the ability to resist, with lethal force if necessary. That, even if it were the only reason, is worth having to deal with the illegal gun violence in our country.
The same goes for healthcare. You would rather have the government take your money, and provide you with heath care, than shoulder the responsibility of caring for yourself. You have given up your freedom to control your own health. Your Government will decide what procedures you get, and if your worth getting them. Your Government will decide when it's time for Richard to die by cutting health care spending and/or services. Your "care pathway" may not include that life saving tipple bypass, sorry Richard, your just too old. The IEA has stated that the "UK faces 'crippling' tax rises and spending cuts to fund pensions and healthcare". Your population is aging, just like ours. Your health care system, just like our social security system, only works when their are more people pulling the wagon than riding it, and the balance is tipping.
Our system is not perfect. You are absolutely right, it can bankrupt you just as fast as it can save your life. Freedom is a dangerous, burdensome, and difficult thing to have, but I will always believe it's worth the costs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I wish more gun advocates would explicitly make the argument that yes, kids are going to die and people are going to be accidentally shot, but it's worth it.
It will and does give pause to our idiotic government, however slight, when they are preparing to do something stupid.
What good is that if they go ahead and do it anyway?
You would rather have the government take your money, and provide you with heath care, than shoulder the responsibility of caring for yourself.
The only way you can provide for your own health care is by being very lucky - either so wealthy you can afford to pay for it, or so healthy you don't need it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Could you be any more disingenuous nash?
Yes, kids are going to die in car accidents, but it's worth it.
Yes, kids are going to die on a bicycle, but it's worth it.
yes, kids are going to die simply walking down the street, but it's worth it.
We have less cars per person in this country than guns, yet there are 26 times more injuries from cars than guns. It's a fact, if people have cars there will be injuries. You try and make them safer if you can, you don't take them away.
"What good is that if they go ahead and do it anyway?"
Because if they push hard enough, we will rise up in armed protest. You don't believe that? I suggest you look at our history, it can and has happened.
"The only way you can provide for your own health care is by being very lucky - either so wealthy you can afford to pay for it, or so healthy you don't need it."
It is expensive yes. It needs regulation yes. Something needs to be done yes yes yes. But nationalizing it? Turning your life over to the politicians? Really? When has that EVER worked out well for the people in the long run?
I could paste link after link of stories regarding the trouble the UK's health care is in right now. It's a great system, until it runs out of money and the politicians get out the knife and start cutting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
First I'd like to point out some issues with these questions. 1. universal health care paid for by the government doesn't have to be "politicians running your health care" because there's a difference between health care and health insurance. 2. your juxtaposition of being unarmed and having unsecured borders implies that the people coming over the border pose a significant hazard to people living in the US, an implication which is not substantiated by facts.
Now my answers.
I would like doctors running my health care, with an effective, efficient and fair insurance system to pay them. I don't particularly care if that system is market based or not, but single payer seems like the best bet to me.
As for guns, I'm unarmed anyway, in part because having a gun would, at best, be very unlikely to increase the safety of my family and would be much more likely to decrease it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How can it not be so? The government is run by the politicians, the politicians control the funding. Paid for by the government means the politicians run it by definition.
"2. your juxtaposition of being unarmed and having unsecured borders implies that the people coming over the border pose a significant hazard to people living in the US, an implication which is not substantiated by facts."
Let me clarify because my wife is an immigrant. people coming over the border "illegally" pose a significant hazard to people living in the US.
Answer: yes they do. Why? Because when they come to the U.S. illegally, they are proving their willingness to break the law. Their first act to becoming a U.S. citizen is to break our laws? That doesn't make any since at all. My family "came over the boarder". They did it right, it was painful, time consuming, and expensive, but they did it right anyway because it was the right thing to do.
"As for guns, I'm unarmed anyway, in part because having a gun would, at best, be very unlikely to increase the safety of my family and would be much more likely to decrease it."
Good for you. You were able to decide for yourself what is best for you and your family. I applaud your choice... but if you live in the U.S., it was your choice to make.. you had the freedom to make that choice, as you should.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If health care were provided by private companies and individual doctors who were compensated by government insurance, I wouldn't consider that politicians running health care, but suit yourself.
Let me clarify because my wife is an immigrant. people coming over the border "illegally" pose a significant hazard to people living in the US.
Answer: yes they do. Why? Because when they come to the U.S. illegally, they are proving their willingness to break the law.
So you think someone who violates, say, campaign finance law is a dangerous criminal and you would be worried he might break into your home and hurt you? After all, he proved his willingness to break the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Some illegal immigrants come across the border carrying guns, and are convicted criminals already.. not all, but some. Should we start electing criminals from other countries to office, then yes, I will probably feel the need to protect myself from them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Some illegal immigrants come across the border carrying guns, and are convicted criminals already.. not all, but some.
That's true of citizens too. So how is your mentioning immigrants anything other than a red herring?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because we have thousands of miles of unsecured border compared to the UK being an island? Because we deport 5 times the amount of criminals from out country than they do per year? My original post was a comparison to the UK, where Richard is from, and where this story is originally about. If the UK lived on the border of Mexico, and it was not secured, I wonder if they would still have the gun laws they do, and as a result, the same lack of freedoms?
I can/will argue this forever nasch. Our forefathers made sure we would always have the right to be armed. They did that to protect us from our own government. Crime (immigrant or not), recreation, collector.. etc.. all good reasons to have the freedom to own a firearm. But the main reason, is to give pause to a government, that proven by this very story your reading, can and will get out of control.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Since immigrants are not a substantial safety threat (and if you still claim they are, I invite you to provide numbers), I don't see why it would make a difference.
They did that to protect us from our own government.
I'm fairly skeptical of that, but I'm pretty sure there is no way you would ever give up that belief. :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
History, and the very story we are posting in, provides enough evidence to suggest that giving up that believe would be silly. Read the story nasch... they are already out of control. What's next?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That has nothing to do with the original purpose of the 2nd amendment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, kids are going to die on a bicycle, but it's worth it.
yes, kids are going to die simply walking down the street, but it's worth it.
I agree with all of those. Do you not?
Because if they push hard enough, we will rise up in armed protest.
That is true, but it has to get so bad that the common person would rather risk everything than put up with it, and we're clearly nowhere near that point now. Thankfully. The presence of all these guns might possibly prevent a blatant, grinding, horrific dictatorship, but it will not prevent the government from doing stupid things or even subverting the will of the people on a large (if subtle) scale. If you're going to take comfort from all the guns, it's best to be realistic about it.
But nationalizing it? Turning your life over to the politicians?
Now who's being disingenuous?
I could paste link after link of stories regarding the trouble the UK's health care is in right now.
What system are you comparing it to? Because the same is true of the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, kids are going to die on a bicycle, but it's worth it.
yes, kids are going to die simply walking down the street, but it's worth it.
I agree with all of those. Do you not?"
I do, just as I agree that Kids are going to die because of guns, but it's worth it as well.
"That is true, but it has to get so bad that the common person would rather risk everything than put up with it, and we're clearly nowhere near that point now"
There are current examples of armed protest in the U.S.
"But nationalizing it? Turning your life over to the politicians?
Now who's being disingenuous?"
Isn't that exactly what they did in the UK? The politicians do run the health care, they control the funding, they control health care.
"What system are you comparing it to? Because the same is true of the US."
I never said the US system isn't broken. It is in fact broken. It needs regulation and it needs competition. If as much effort was put into making the health and insurance industries compete fairly on the open market as is spent trying to nationalize them or create a single payer system, we wouldn't be having this conversation. The market would have fixed the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's great, I'm just saying it would be nice if everyone could own the positions they believe in like you are doing.
Isn't that exactly what they did in the UK?
"Turn their lives over to the politicians"? No.
If as much effort was put into making the health and insurance industries compete fairly on the open market as is spent trying to nationalize them or create a single payer system
Like... zero? I don't recall hearing any national politician advocate for nationalizing the health care system. Maybe Bernie Sanders, I'm not sure. I'm pretty certain there has never been a bill to do that, and if there was it never made it out of committee.
It needs regulation and it needs competition.
It might go a little deeper than that. There are structural problems, for example the person doing the shopping (patient) isn't the person doing the paying (insurance) and the customer doesn't understand the product or the pricing. But at any rate we're agreed there are things that need to be fixed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I could post plenty of links to the contrary, just google it, it will save us both a lot of time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This doesn't mention anyone trying it since 1976.
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=615
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It has everything to do with it. It's not the only reason, but it was one of the main reasons.
"To determine the meaning of the Constitution, one must start with the words of the Constitution itself. If the meaning is plain, that meaning controls. To ascertain the meaning of the term "well regulated" as it was used in the Second Amendment, it is necessary to begin with the purpose of the Second Amendment itself. The overriding purpose of the Framers in guaranteeing the right of the people to keep and bear arms was as a check on the standing army, which the Constitution gave the Congress the power to "raise and support." "
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's impossible for events in 2015 ("they are already out of control") to have influenced the authors of the US Constitution. Sorry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
My response was that the original intent was to keep our government in check with an armed populace who potentially could rise up and overthrow them. It was true then, it is true now. Our founders knew that without it, the government would head down the path of becoming a totalitarianism government, just like your seeing the government in the UK doing with this story. It won't happen over night, but they control their health care, they have disarmed them, now they are going to take away their children if they think they will become radicalized? Does radicalized equal disagreeing with the government?? What's next? Re-education?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm not suggesting all doctors work for the government or anything. I was more referring to nationalizing the insurance portion of the heath care system with some type of government run compulsory health insurance program. I think the proper term is "universal heath care". Forcing people to purchase health insurance, in my mind, is no different than just taking their money through taxes and providing it to them.
Were going to find out soon enough. As soon as the "tax" errrr... Obama care penalty surpasses the cost of actually purchasing health insurance, it's going to get interesting. The low income earners that can barely support their families will buy insurance, insurance that they can't afford. The government will provide them with some subsidies, subsidies that will be carried on the backs of tax payers, but will it be enough? They won't get away with paying nothing, the system will collapse if they do. So they will have to start paying something...and that something is money they don't have.
If you control the funding and the insurance side of health care, you control health care. Look at the correlation between spending cuts, wait time, and quality of care due to the austerity measures in the UK right now. Eventually they will run out of other peoples money, and when they do, and because the system is subsidized and not self supporting, the entire system is going to come crashing down.
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/a-brief-history-universal-health-care-efforts-in-the-us
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ostrich "position"
not only that you are on your knees,
but that you have your NAKED ass up in the air...
kind of inviting isn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
google the "Liverpool Care Pathway for the Dying Patient (LCP)"
this is how your government is going to give you health after an age THEY will choose for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Orwell was English
I swear, whenever I hear of some nutty proposal out of Washington, I can always count on an English politician to propose something nuttier.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Incidious
Because you just *know* that if the parents complain that this is unfair, then they will be branded as 'radical' for it…
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@ "If there are two edicts I try to follow whenever I'm writing, they are, first, write what is true and, second, avoid cliche at all costs."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @ "If there are two edicts I try to follow whenever I'm writing, they are, first, write what is true and, second, avoid cliche at all costs."
Talk about bad writing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You wouldn't know anything about either point you're criticizing. Nothing you write is true, and everything you write is a constantly repeated cliche of your own pathetic invention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And i did not speak up for i was not a child
Then they came for the teens
And i did not speak up for i was not a teen
Then they came for the adults
And there was no one left to speak up for me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seems like one definition away from forced subserviance......submit or be defined as we define them, into a group we have given ourselves extra authority over, to do with at our will
Yeah, this is a good government /s
There are worse, but thats not saying much when their ALL bad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ok, simply travelling to sysria should not be a crime, and dont tell me thats not exactly the impression this gives to joe public, not signing up, but simply setting foot with no intentions of signing up(for lack of a better term), at least be prepared to find a gchq branded bug up your arse the moment you get their(im implying their probably gonna survey the hell out of you, irregardless of guilt or inocense) ...........i seriuosly doubt i will travel to syria, but if i did, im pretty certain that i, and many others would do so with the intentions of seing first hand, with their own two eyes, to see just what the fuck is honestly going on, without the narrative of the media to tint things.......regardless if their telling the whole truth or not
This also means that less people will do this, and hence less observations made by those other then mainstream media, thats highly suspicious to me, given the history of war and the super powers actions during them........and since
Our freedoms are as thick as a sheet of ice
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A representative government who believes it has ultimate authority, is no representative government at all
A dictatorship disguised as a representative......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Public interest, or public support
Are you afraid of revealing your imoral methods, or the information you feel entitled to
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
dont forget car crash, plane crash, stubbed toe, chipped tooth, lightning strike, stairs, slips, falls, heavy object, sharp object, lack of object, suffocation, mastacation, electricity, chemicals, nighttime vision, door, frame, sleepy weepy lemon squizzy
I do think theres a threat too, but one that is being USED and not NEW.......and not entirely without BLAME.........i dont think anyone has a right to claim to be the good guys in the "terrorism" fad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pot Kettle Black
This is an act of a totalitarian government.
What could be more radical than circumventing international law and launching an elective war based wholly upon lies that has killed hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of innocent human beings?
I know what is more radical than launching elective wars based wholly upon lies.
It is the kidnapping, torturing, indefinite,incognito,incommunicado detention of other innocent human beings in a vainglorious attempt to connect Saddam Hussein with the US created terror group al qaeda and thus provide an ex post facto justification for the March 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Can't have any of our Western war criminals (Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Feith, Wolfowitz, Perle, Powell, Blair, etal) have the appearance being radicalized now can we.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
....mmmm, must be wednesday
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh you voted for a different political party well that's no longer accepted . You have a different life style away with you. You believe in a different religion were no longer accepting that in this country.
Where does it end. Though it's not like history does not show us where this sort of laws, thinking and leadership goes in the end.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
is a whistleblower actually.
he just leaked what he could find out. He was working for them.
He is more like a whistleblower with oustanding writing skills.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Aldous Huxley Approves This Program
I suppose this is what happens when you cram 60+ million people onto an island that can reasonably support 6 million people.
Reminds me of those old rat population density experiments - where the rats became increasingly insane as the population density climbed higher and higher.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
UK Goes Full Orwell
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
government stealing children from parents
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I beleive the family courts in the UK could be part of agenda 21
I beleive this could be part of that so called agenda to keep a control on families as the world government wants to retain control on the brining up of the future generation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cameron, what that journalist "going mad" live on tv was not ravings but the real news.
I hope the britons wake up sometimes soon like we Canadians just did and push those neocons out of government before it's really too late for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
islam
The rise of islam in europe is a threat they cant accept. Its not a threat its a reality. Our country will be majority muslim soon. They dont like that
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Radicalisation
Careful monitoring of children aged 2-5 and teachers is envisaged.
The PM, David Cameron has also warned the country to be on the look-out for "non-violent extremists". These are people the PM defines as those who subscribe to false-flag theories re-911 or what he terms "anti-semitic conspiracy theorists."
Such is low level of cultural awareness in the general population on our overcrowded island, they haven't noticed that the Big Brother state is just around the corner.
Totalitarianism won't need to come in through the back door. Here in the UK, the comatose state of the population will allow it in through the front!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]